I find, further, that Mr. A. Lisner is called upon to represent the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Washington, and he represents himself as the representative of that particular interest. No suggestion is made, however, of the fact that Mr. Lisner is also a member of the board of trustees of George Washington University. In other words, gentlemen, with a single exception-that of Mr. Boutell, who introduced the bill-every man who testified at that hearing in favor of George Washington University was intimately connected with that institution and tied up in some way, either financially or through having his reputation at stake for sanity in the management of its finances, with the interests of that enterprise. I submit that is hardly a fair representation of the interests of the people of the District of Columbia in this important matter, and that an entirely false notion of the uninterested character of these testimonials, because of that fact, is given to the country. I thank you, gentlemen, for your hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Have any members of the committee any questions they would like to ask?

Doctor JAMES. I may say that as far as our part of this is concerned, President Ayers of the State University of Tennessee, president of the National Association of University Presidents, and President Thompson of the State University of Ohio, and chairman of the executive committee of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, are both in the room, and if any. one would like to ask them any questions they will be glad to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they desire to be heard?

Doctor JAMES. I do not know that they do. If anyone desires to ask them any questions as to the matter, they are here.

The CHAIRMAN. I have just one question I would like to ask you. Doctor JAMES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the course of your statement you said that George Washington University was required, by the terms of its charter, to establish subordinate colleges of a denominational character.

Doctor JAMES. No; I said it was privileged to do so, and that it had established one such college which was abolished after this bill was introduced, temporarily.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that college?

Doctor JAMES. That was called the Columbian College, and was organized as a Baptist institution under this nonsectarian institution. The trustees were all Baptists and the president of the board was a Baptist.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought from your statement that you meant that the George Washington University, as a university, was required or privileged to establish subordinate schools.

Doctor JAMES. It is privileged to, and it did establish this one, Columbian College. That is as far as it got.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that a subordinate school of Columbian University?

Doctor JAMES. Yes; it was a part of George Washington University. The programme announced that the undergraduate work was all to be done by a series of colleges which it was hoped would be supported by people interested, one by the Baptists and another by

the Episcopalians and another by the Methodists, and so on; a method most admirable and statesmanlike, I think, as long as carried out by private benefactions, but of course a curious thing to foist upon the public treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. If the members of the committee have no questions to ask Doctor James, and if no one else has any questions to ask, and no other gentleman desires to make a statement, the committee will hear anyone who desires to be heard in favor of the bill. Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard in behalf of the bill.

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD D. HARLAN, REPRESENTING GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.

Doctor HARLAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I hardly think it is worth while to make any reference to the remarks which the president of the Illinois University was pleased to make about my honored father. I do not think that the members of this committee, or anyone living in Washington, would feel that at the close of his life, as he approaches his fourscore years, after thirtythree or thirty-four years spent in this city in close touch with the young men of the District, this committee was under any misapprehension as to the reasons for his interest in this measure of justice for the District of Columbia, and they would know that his words had their own weight, without the slightest reference to the fact that he is nearly at the end of his term of service with George Washington University. You knew that he was a member of that faculty. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished men who are here in spirit, represented on this petition that has been presented to you, have made a long journey to Washington to defeat a certain bill. What is the nature of this bill? In this matter of federal appropriations for education in subjects related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, now granted to every State and Territory in the Union out of the Federal Treasury, toward which the citizens of the District pay their full quota, the Gallinger-Boutell bill at last put the District of Columbia, with its 350,000 native and naturalized Americans, upon a level with Hawaii and Porto Rico; and in the second place it provides what is admitted by those who know the present condition of the Public Treasury and the present state of opinion in Congress as to adding to the educational budget of the District to be the only feasible plan for a very long while to come for making the Morrill appropriations locally effective for the hundreds of young men whose parents are unable to send them out of the District and who must get all of their education while they are living in the District; and in coming to Washington upon this generous errand they have assured you that they represent some 36 state universities and some 15 of the independent land-grant colleges. We may therefore imagine the presidents of these 62 institutions now assembled in this room in the hope of defeating this just and wise measure. With one important difference, the District of Columbia at this moment resembles an old darky who was brought before a court in Maryland to be tried for some petty offense. He could only read a little, and he slowly spelled out the indictment, "The State of Maryland vs. Moses Johnson."What does dat 'vs.' mean, boss?" "Why, Mose, that is a

Latin word; it stands for 'versus' and means against.' What it really says is, 'The State of Maryland against Moses Johnson.”” "Why, boss, you don't mean to tell me dat de whole State of Maryland is agin dis one lonesome old niggah?" "Yes, Mose.” "Den, if dat's so, boss, dis heah niggah gibs up right away."

But right here, gentlemen of the committee, comes the difference between the District of Columbia and that poor old darky. The District of Columbia does not give up right away, for it has faith in the intelligence and in the ingrained love of fair play which is characteristic of the typical American Senator and the typical American Representative. The three gentlemen who are the bearers of this most generous petition and memorial represent institutions which are being aided out of this same fund.

I will not take the time to read the figures, though I would like to furnish them in complete form, but I simply wish to indicate the character of this. I will give the detailed information afterwards in correct form. I have here a table, which is not completed, which gives the number of acres of public lands that have been granted to every one of these institutions. The District of Columbia had no share in the land grants which came out of our patrimony as well as theirs, inasmuch as the proceeds of that land grant are now being used to support every one of these institutions. The first column of this table gives the number of acres of public land given to those institutions, amounting to 10,000,000 acres. The second column gives the total value of the invested proceeds of those public lands now being held by the public land act for the benefit of these same institutions, a gift that came from us all; and that column foots up $12,000,000. We have no share in that fund. The next column gives the amount of annual income, coming from this invested land-grant fund to these several institutions, from their state treasuries, a gift which came from the people of the United States, and that column foots up $117,000 for this year. That is entirely outside of the $40,000 which goes to each State and Territory of the United States under these acts.

Take the State of Illinois as an example. Illinois began in 1890 to receive this money under the first Morrill Act, increasing by $1.000 per year up to the year 1900, when it was $25,000 a year, and then standing stationary at that until 1907 and then beginning again to increase by $5,000 each year until the year 19-. The Illinois State University has received $500,000 from the Federal Treasury for the benefit of its young people, in addition to the amount, perhaps $1,000,000, that has come during the years that the land-grant fund was invested. We can never get even with the University of Illinois. All we ask is to be allowed to come in at this stage of the game and get our $40,000 a year for the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. In order that the statement may be entirely accurate, I perhaps ought to remind you that under the provisions of the Adams Act and the Nelson amendment, the amounts which will be paid to the state colleges and experiment stations when those acts mature will be just double the sums originally provided by the Morrill Act.

Doctor HARLAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, $50,000 for the agricultural colleges and $30,000 a year for the experiment stations.

Doctor HARLAN. Yes; thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These figures did not take into account the experiment stations at all, because the Gallinger-Boutell amendment does not admit the District. to the benefits of the Hatch Act. I simply compared them on the same basis.

The Morrill acts simply grant to each State and Territory of the Union a certain amount. For what purpose? The acts do not say one word which implies even that the State is to create a state university or a state college. The words are carefully chosen. This money is to be used for the maintenance and endowment and support of at least one college in each of the several jurisdictions that will teach these subjects. By the very terms of the acts the choice of the local instrumentality is left to the state legislatures. It is a purely local practical and financial problem, and where the States did not have state universities or were not ready to establish state universities, the acts themselves, by their very omissions and by one or two phrases of those acts, seemed to take it for granted that the State was at liberty to utilize the best instrumentality that was at hand.

The Federal Government has had no interest in the local question; it was only desirous that these forms of education should be promoted, and that was all; and from the very beginning of the administration of this beneficial body of laws the States have been given that liberty. The State of Connecticut, until it was ready to establish its state college of agriculture, utilized the privileges of Yale. The State of Rhode Island used the privileges of Brown until it was ready to establish the state college, and for thirty or forty years the States of New York and New Jersey and Massachusetts have utilized the privileges of institutions upon private foundations, but which were brought into certain relations to the State as soon as they were appointed to do that service. And that has been approved by the Interior Department, with the tacit consent of the Congress of the United States, for over a generation. Now, will the gentlemen come here, as you sit here on this second question of the method of applying this law, as you sit here as the committee of the District legislation, and will he tell you that as the District legislature you are not free to exercise the same liberty of choice which the Federal Government has permitted to these three States, and two or three others before that? It is a purely practical question which must be decided in accordance with the needs of the District, and what is financially feasible.

Now, Mr. Chairman. I would like at this point to ask Doctor James a few questions, if you will permit me.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor James, will you permit Doctor Harlan to ask you some questions?

Mr. JAMES. I presume I may answer these individually or when you are through with your questions. That is, the questions may be given categorical answers?

Doctor HARLAN. Doctor James, I believe that in February of last year you addressed a letter to the presidents of what were known as the land grant colleges in order to enlist the opposition of these colleges and the state universities generally, to the passage of this bill. I will not take the time to read all of that letter, but after describing that this money was to be given to the District and then

given, as a private institution, to the George Washington University, you go on to say:

Is it not wiser for this money to go to the national university which ought to be established in the District of Columbia and which surely will be established in the course of time, rather than to a private undertaking?

I believe you wrote some such letter as that?

Mr. JAMES. I did, sir.

Doctor HARLAN. Yes. Now, is it not true that the provisions made under the Morrill acts are intended for the education of the industrial classes along certain undergraduate lines?

Mr. JAMES. I do not see that that has anything to do with this question. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer all of Doctor Harlan's questions together, if he will put them so that I can take them up seriatim rather than as he raises them, because it requires considerable repetition to do it in this way.

The CHAIRMAN. If Doctor Harlan asks you any questions upon which you are not informed, or which you do not care, for any reason, to answer, of course it is perfectly within your province to decline to answer them.

Mr. JAMES. I would like to answer all his questions together in one statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be more satisfactory to the committee if the questions should be answered as they are asked. Mr. JAMES. You think it would?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; in order that we may have this matter before us, and have all the information we can get.

Mr. JAMES. Very well. In answer to this particular question, I have to say that this letter did not concern the assignment of money under the Morrill acts particularly. It was a question of an appropriation to a certain purpose. The details as to the proposition to take the money under the Morrill acts and utilize them as was proposed under the scheme sent out by George Washington University, had not at that time been called to my attention. I should answer in regard to the first question, then, that the money under the Morrill acts, so far as I know, was not intended for that purpose. Doctor HARLAN. For what purpose?

Mr. JAMES. For the establishment of graduate university work in the District of Columbia.

Doctor HARLAN. Then you admit that the Morrill Act appropriations are intended for undergraduate work?

Mr. JAMES. I should not say that at all, because the Morrill acts appropriations are given to the individual States for the promotion of agriculture and mechanic arts, and instruction in agriculture and in the mechanic arts. Whatever is necessary in the development of agricultural instruction is a proper subject for the use of those funds; and if the University of Illinois, which happens to have the Morrill fund in Illinois or the agricultural college in the State of Michigan which happens to have it there, should think that the interests of agriculture would be advanced by research in the fundamental, underlying principles of agriculture and the development of men who can make those studies, then it is not only perfectly entitled to do that, but the law in one case requires it, and there is a MAD C 31735-10- -3